March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-1 

2.0 Alternatives 

DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC (Applicant) proposes to construct and operate an 

interstate high-speed passenger train between southern California and Las Vegas, Nevada 

along an approximately 200 mile corridor. The Applicant proposes to construct nearly all 

of the fully grade-separated, dedicated double track, passenger-only railroad either in the 

median or immediately alongside Interstate 15 (I-15). Limited portions of the proposed 

rail alignment would be located within existing railroad corridors or rights-of-way. 1

Alternatives evaluated and analyzed in this EIS include action alternatives for 

construction of the proposed steel wheel on steel rail high-speed train, and a “No Action” 

alternative. 

The action alternatives considered in this EIS have been categorized into two primary sets: 

Alternative A and Alternative B. These are based on potential alignment routings for the 

200 mile corridor. For analytical purposes in this EIS, each of the alignments is divided 

into segments. FRA’s intent in organizing the document in this manner is to allow for lead 

and cooperating agencies to “mix and match” various segments in composing a preferred 

alternative. 

 Alternative A consists primarily of rail alignment segments that would be 

within the median of the I-15 freeway. 

 Alternative B consists primarily of rail alignment segments that would be 

within the fenced area of the I-15 freeway, adjacent to automobile travel 

lanes. 

The action alternatives would also include one of each of the following permanent physical 

facilities in addition to the rail alignment. As discussed below, this EIS examines multiple 

site options for these facilities. Similar to the consideration of rail segments noted above, 

FRA’s intent is to allow for the lead and cooperating agencies to compose their preferred 

alternative by incorporating one each of the following permanent physical facilities. With 

very few exceptions (noted in detailed discussions below), these physical facilities can 

connect to all rail alignment segments. 

 

1 The use of any private railroad rights-of-way would be subject to approval by owner railroads. STB approval 

of the Project would not convey the authority to force any private railroad to sell, lease, or otherwise allow 

DesertXpress to use the right-of-way of an existing railroad. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.1 Summary of Alternatives 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-2 

• Victorville passenger station: Two site options (Site 1 and Site 2) 

immediately west of the I-15 freeway are under consideration. 

• Victorville Operations, Maintenance, and Storage Facility (OMSF):

Two site options (OMSF 1 and OMSF 2) immediately west of the I-15 freeway 

are under consideration. 

• Maintenance of Way (MOW) facility: One site option is under 

consideration adjacent to the I-15 freeway near the community of Baker. 

• Las Vegas area Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF): Three site 

options (Sloan Road MSF, Wigwam Avenue MSF, and Robindale Avenue MSF) 

are under consideration. 

• Las Vegas area passenger station: Four site options are under 

consideration in Clark County/City of Las Vegas: Southern Station, Central 

Station A, Central Station B, and Downtown Station. 

The Applicant has proposed two possible train technologies (referred to as “technology 

options”), each fully applicable to any set of the action alternatives: a diesel-electric 

multiple unit train (DEMU) or an electric multiple unit train (EMU). The two technology 

options would have similar right-of-way width requirements and largely the same 

construction footprint. However, the EMU option would also include overhead catenary 

wires and supports (located along the length of the rail alignment) three electrical 

substations (one at an OMSF, one at the MOW, and one at an MSF), and approximately 

seventeen transformers (each located on 4000 to 5000 square foot parcels at 10 mile 

intervals along the rail corridor). The EMU option would also require three electrical 

utility connections from the existing electrical grid, one in Victorville, one in Baker, and 

one near Sloan. Several train technologies for the DesertXpress project were considered 

but rejected from analysis in this EIS. Refer to Section 2.3.1, Train Technologies 

Considered but Rejected, for further discussion. 

The estimated capital cost of any action alternative would be approximately $3.5 to $4 

billion. 

The alternative routings and physical facilities are illustrated in several graphics within 

this chapter and are described at length below. Preliminary engineering drawings of these 

components are included within Appendix A. Appendix A includes the following: 

 Appendix A-1: Plan and profile drawings scale at 1 inch = 1,000 feet of 

the various rail alignment routings and ancillary facilities. 

 Appendix A-2: Seven large-scale maps (each 36 inches by 48 inches) 

depicting the proposed rail segments and ancillary facilities at a large scale 

on maps features Township, Range, and Section detail from the Public 

Lands Survey System (PLSS). 

 Appendices A-3 and A-4: Large sized site plans for proposed stations 

and maintenance facilities, identifying the proposed footprints of buildings, 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.1 Summary of Alternatives 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-3 

tail tracks, fuel storage facilities, radio signal towers, power substations, 

and other related features. 

 Appendix A-5: Plan drawings at 1”=1000’ showing footprints of the 17 

proposed autotransformers sites and typical autotransformer layout. 

The remainder of this chapter is organized into the following sections: 

• Section 2.1 gives a brief summary of alternatives considered; 

• Section 2.2 describes the development of action alternatives; 

• Section 2.3 discusses action alternatives and component options considered 

and dismissed from further analysis; 

• Section 2.4 describes the location of the action alternatives and components 

including the technology, system-performance criteria, alignment, and station 

locations. 

2.1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES 

2.1.1 ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The action alternatives are subdivided into Alternative A alignments and Alternative B 

alignments, as well as seven segments within the alignments. Alternative A alignments 

are identified as the “Median Alternatives” in that from Yermo, California, northeasterly to 

Clark County/Las Vegas (Segments 3-7), the alignments would primarily be located within 

the median of the I-15 freeway. Action Alternative B alignments are identified as the 

“Right of Way Alternatives” in that for most of the distance between Victorville and Clark 

County/Las Vegas (Segments 1-7), the tracks would be located within or immediately 

adjacent to the right-of-way of I-15. Alternative A and B alignments would originate at 

one of the two Victorville station alternatives and terminate at one of the four Las Vegas 

station alternatives. 

In addition, a third alignment option is offered for Segments 6 and 7, Option C. The 

Option C alignment would diverge from the I-15 corridor near the community of Sloan in 

unincorporated Clark County and generally follow, or be located within, the existing 

UPRR right-of-way. Option C would terminate at one of three Las Vegas station options, 

Central A, Central B or Downtown (one station option, the Southern Station, could not be 

utilized in conjunction with the Option C alignment). 2 3 

The alignment options for the Action alternatives are summarized by segment in Table 2-1 

below and illustrated in Figures 2-1.1 through 2-1.7. 

 

2 Option C would require approval by the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). 

3 Station options are discussed in further detail below. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.1 Summary of Alternatives 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-4 

Table 2-1 Summary of Action Alternatives 

Segment Alternative A Alternative B Option C Applicant’s 

Proposal 

1: Victorville to 

Lenwood Segment 1: Along west side of I-15 corridor NA Segment 1 

2: Lenwood to Yermo Segment 2A/B, 2A 

Joint alignment through 

Barstow, then well 

north of I-15 past 

Yermo 

Segment 2 A/B, 2B 

Joint alignment through 

Barstow, then just north 

of I-15 past Yermo 

NA Segment 2A/B, 2A 

3: Yermo to Mountain 

Pass 

Segment 3A: Within I15 median Segment 3B: West of I15, running alongside 

freeway 

NA Segment 3B 

4: Mountain Pass to 

Primm 

Segment 4A: Includes 

approx. 2 mile portion 

of MNP, then east of I15 

Segment 4B: Through 

new tunnels in 

mountains northwest of 

I-15, through BLMmanaged land 

NA Segment 4A 

5: Primm to Sloan 

Road 

Segment 5A: Within I15 median Segment 5B: Along east 

side of I-15 

NA Segment 5B 

6: Sloan Road to Las 

Vegas (Southern or 

Central A/B Stations)4

Segment 6A: Within I15 median Segment 6B: Varying 

from east to west side of 

I-15 

Segment 

6C: 

UPRR 

Corridor 

Segment 6B 

7: West Twain Avenue 

to Downtown Station 

Segment 7A: Within I15 median Segment 7B: West side 

of I-15 

Segment 

7C: 

UPRR 

Corridor 

Segment 7B 

Alternative A alignments would provide median crossings for the segments located within 

the median of I-15 (Segments 3 through 7). For these portions, specifically between 

Yermo, California and Clark County/Las Vegas, the barriers and fencing along Alternative 

A Segments 3, 5, 6, and 7 would incorporate cross medians that would provide an opening 

for emergency access to the high-speed rail right-of-way. To provide access across the I-15 

median for authorized emergency vehicles, such as Police, Fire, and Paramedics, 

Alternative A alignments would provide culverts under the railroad right-of-way for the 

exclusive use of emergency vehicles. In addition to the existing accessible highway 

overpasses and underpasses, the cross medians would be located approximately every 10 

miles, or as required by the respective State Highway Patrols and state Departments of 

Transportation. Figure 2-2 shows the design concept of the cross median emergency 

access. 

 

4 If Option C is selected for Segment 6, the terminus would be either Central Station A or B or the Downtown 

Station, via Segment 7A, 7B or Option C. Segment 6 Option C would not terminate at the Southern Station. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.1 Summary of Alternatives 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-5 

It is not anticipated that Alternative B would require the implementation of cross median 

emergency access, as Alternative B would be located alongside the existing I-15 freeway 

and within the I-15 right-of-way. As such, emergency access across the I-15 median would 

remain unaffected and no crossing of Alternative B would be necessary. 

2.1.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 

A significant portion of the project would lie within Federal lands administered by the 

BLM. As a Federal Cooperating Agency, the BLM required the Applicant to identify an 

“Applicant Proposed Alternative.” The Applicant’s Proposed Alternative, pending the 

results of the environmental analysis, is comprised of a mix of segments from Alternative 

A and B alignments. The Applicant’s Proposed Alternative includes the following 

segments: 

 1: Victorville to Lenwood 

 2A/B, 2A: Lenwood to Yermo 

 3B: Yermo to Mountain Pass 

 4A: Mountain Pass to Primm via southerly alignment across Nipton Road 

 5B: Primm to Sloan 

 6B: Sloan to Southern, Central A, Central B Stations 

7B: (Only if Downtown Station is selected) Twain Avenue to Downtown Station via I15 corridor. 

In terms of other physical facilities, the Applicant’s Proposed Alternatives would utilize 

one of the two Victorville station sites, one of the two OMSF sites, the MOW site, one of 

the three MSF sites, and one of the four Las Vegas area passenger stations. If the EMU 

option is selected, then autotransformer sites and utility corridors would also be included. 

All of these components are analyzed in detail within Chapter 3 of this EIS. 

2.1.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative would not involve the construction and operation of the highspeed train and associated facilities described above under the proposed Action 

Alternatives. The No Action Alternative is being studied as the baseline for comparison 

with the proposed action alternatives. The No Action Alternative would include existing 

access to Las Vegas via highway (I-15) and airport (McCarran International [LAS]) access. 

The No Action Alternative would analyze the system physical characteristics and capacity 

as they exist at the time of the EIS (2006-2009) and where possible, the planned and 

funded improvements that would be in place by the planning horizon year of 2030. These 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.1 Summary of Alternatives 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-6 

are identified in Section 2.1.3.1 below. Other transportation improvements near 

Victorville and within Clark County are being studied and are not currently funded; as a 

result, these are not included in the baseline analysis for the No Action Alternative. These 

studies are discussed further in Section 2.1.3.2 below. 

As of 2009, existing roadway conditions on I-15 from Victorville to Las Vegas are as 

follows: 

Victorville to SR 58 (Barstow) - Three lanes each way with a 4th southbound truck 

lane coming out of Barstow up to the summit, 

SR-58 to I-40 (Barstow) - Three lanes each way plus some auxiliary lanes, 

I-40 to Baker - Two lanes each way 

Baker to California/Nevada state line - Two lanes each way with a truck lane 

northbound approaching Halloran Summit (~17 miles north of Baker) and southbound at 

Mountain Pass (~15 miles south of the state line), 

State line to I-215 - Three southbound lanes and two northbound lanes, with an 

additional northbound lane currently being constructed, 

I-215 to Flamingo Road (Clark County) - Three lanes each way plus auxiliary lanes, 

and 

North of Flamingo Road (Clark County and City of Las Vegas) - Four lanes 

each way. 

Between 1995 and 2006, annual average daily traffic (AADT) at the California/Nevada 

state line rose steadily. Over these twelve years measured, AADT increased by 27 percent, 

at an average annual increase of about 2 percent. Over a typical year, travel demand is 

highest in the summer months of June, July, and August, and slightly above average in 

November and December. On a weekly basis, traffic volumes are heaviest on Sunday, 

followed by Friday and Saturday, with Monday-Thursday volumes markedly lower. The 

direction of traffic flow on I-15 is predominately southbound on Sunday and Monday, 

relatively even on Tuesday through Thursday, and predominately northbound on Friday 

and Saturday. 

Under free flow traffic conditions, the trip on I-15 from Victorville to Las Vegas takes 

about 3 hours to travel the 192 mile distance, if driving the posted speed limit consistently. 

Recent studies estimated that the delay related to peak-period congestion was 1.25 hours 

in 2002, but will grow significantly, despite planned improvements. Delays associated 

with congestion are projected by Caltrans and FHWA to increase to 3.19 hours by 2012, 

7.03 hours by 2022, and 5.78 hours by 2032, even with planned lane widening in place.5 

With these projected travel delays, the total trip time from Victorville to Las Vegas would 

increase to more than 6 hours by 2012 and nearly 12 hours by 2032. 

 

5 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment, Victorville to Barstow, Add Southbound Mixed Flow Lane. 

Caltrans, FHWA, County of San Bernardino, May 2001. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.1 Summary of Alternatives 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-7 

2.1.3.1 Planned and Programmed Transportation Improvements 

While the No Action Alternative would not involve the construction of the DesertXpress 

high-speed rail system, Caltrans and the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) 

are planning for future highway improvements along I-15 between Victorville and Las 

Vegas. Certain transportation improvements have been programmed for funding in a 

State Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) 

or are otherwise understood to be reasonably foreseeable. For the purposes of this EIS, 

these planned transportation improvements are assumed to occur under both the No 

Action Alternative and the action alternatives by 2030. For a discussion of other planned 

projects that may occur in the project area but are not considered as part of the No Action 

Alternative nor the action alternatives, please refer to Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, 

Section 1.6, Relationship to Other Transportation Projects and Plans in the Study Area. 

These other planned projects are also considered in the cumulative analysis contained in 

this EIS in Chapter 3.16 

As discussed in Section 2.0 of the Traffic Impact Study, I-15 will remain in its existing 

configuration for most of the distance between Victorville and Las Vegas, except for 

capacity improvements in the urban areas. The following improvements are anticipated to 

be operative within the No Action and action alternatives: 

California

 Widen the bridge crossing over the Mojave River in Victorville 

 Reconstruct the D Street, E Street, and South Stoddard Wells Road 

interchanges along I-15. 

 Near Barstow, widen a 1-mile segment of I-15 to 6 lanes and reconstruct an 

I-15 interchange in Barstow. 

 Add truck climbing lanes on I-15 in sections with steep grades. 

Nevada

 “NEON” project: 

 Reconstruct the I-15/Charleston interchange, 

 Implement local access improvements 

 Add a High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) direct connector lane from 

US 95 to I-15. 

 The “I-15 South” project (Sloan Road to Tropicana Avenue)
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.2 Development of Action Alternatives 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-8 

• Add new interchanges on I-15 at Bermuda Road, Starr Avenue, and 

Cactus Road. 

• Reconstruct the Sloan Road and I-15 interchange. 

2.1.3.2 Planned but Unprogrammed Transportation Improvements 

Other transportation improvements near Victorville and within Clark County are 

anticipated but not currently funded, not found to be reasonably foreseeable, and were 

thus not taken into account in the traffic impact study for the DesertXpress project. These 

projects are however considered in the cumulative analysis contained in this EIS in 

Chapter 3.16. 

In the Victorville area, planning is underway for the High Desert Corridor (HDC) roadway 

project. The HDC is a new regional highway that will eventually link Palmdale and 

Lancaster in the west to Apple Valley in the east. A twenty mile portion between US 395 in 

Adelanto (west of the project area) and SR-18, (east of the Town of Apple Valley) is under 

environmental review as of January 2009, expected to be complete the end of 2009. 

Completion of this portion of the project is anticipated by 2015.6 

Furthermore, the City of Victorville is preparing a specific plan for the North Mojave area. 

The North Mojave area extends along I-15 from the Mojave River to the north of the Dale 

Evans Parkway interchange. However, planning work is not yet complete and the 

assumed roadway configuration within the North Mojave area is preliminary at this time. 

NDOT has a planning study underway for potential upgrades to I-15 and parallel roadways 

between I-215 and US 95, referred to as the Urban Resort Corridor Study. 

Clark County is considering a new airport in the Ivanpah Valley, just south of Las Vegas. 

The new airport would supplement the existing McCarran airport in Las Vegas. While 

specific site plans for the proposed Ivanpah airport are not yet complete, the new airport 

project has furthered the consideration of adding roadway capacity on the I-15 corridor, 

either through freeway widening and/or the construction of a new arterial roadway. 

Additionally, Clark County Department of Aviation is proposing the construction of the 

Southern Nevada Regional Heliport, which would be located near Sloan Road and I-15. 

2.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

The decisions of the Lead and Cooperating Agencies on the proposal are related to 

ensuring compliance with existing laws and regulations, permission to use federal lands, 

permission to form a new rail operating company, and permission to construct and 

 

6 City of Victorville, High Desert Corridor Fact Sheet, Phase I, SR 18-T, accessed on February 3, 2009 at 

http://ci.victorville.ca.us/uploadedFiles/CityServices/HighDesertCorridorFact%20Sheet.pdf 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.2 Development of Action Alternatives 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-9 

operate a new rail line, including mitigation for all significant impacts. No Federal funds 

are currently sought for construction or operation of the proposal. 

A decision to select the No Action Alternative would mean that the project would not be 

constructed. The Applicant has no obligation to entertain alternative transportation 

investments other than their proposed action. 

A number of the alignment alternatives for the proposed project have been studied by the 

applicant. The applicant has removed some alternatives from further consideration based 

on technical and environmental criteria. Technical criteria were developed largely by the 

applicant and agreed to by the FRA. Environmental criteria were developed by FRA. This 

section describes the process used by the applicant to evaluate conceptual alignment 

alternatives and to make feasibility and practicability determinations in consultation with 

the FRA and cooperating agencies during the environmental review process. Key criteria 

used to distinguish among alternatives are listed in Table 2-2. Those criteria include 

technical and alignment factors, including connectivity, right-of-way constraints and 

compatibility, ridership potential, constructability, and environmental impacts. Agency 

criteria also included a review of project consistency with adopted plans and programs in 

effect in the project area and the minimization of any potential conflicts such as at-grade 

crossings of any roads, or conflicts with transportation purposes of the I-15 freeway 

corridor. Such criteria are used to screen the number of reasonable and practical potential 

alternatives, which are further reviewed against the technical criteria evaluated in Sections 

3.1 through 3.16 of this EIS. 

In addition, the FRA and cooperating agencies in the EIS process have developed criteria 

for consideration of alternatives. These are shown in Table 2-3. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.2 Development of Action Alternatives 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-10 

Table 2-2 Alternatives Criteria 

Technical and Alignment Criteria 

Travel-time competitive with highway travel (1 hour and 45 minutes or less) 

Reliable and convenient mode of travel 

Proven steel wheel on steel track technology 

Maximize return on investment for this privately funded project 

Minimize the need for private land acquisition 

Limited restrictions on track geometry for reduced travel time and increased passenger comfort 

Maximum vertical gradient of 4.5% and maximum 6.0-inch actual super elevation (Ea) 

Capable of accommodating normal maintenance activities without disruption to daily operations of adjacent 

highway or rail operations 

Tunnels less than one mile in length 

Adequate space for emergency access and maintenance and inspection access to the trackway 

Adequate trackbed drainage 

Able to provide acceptable horizontal clearance from existing and proposed railroad tracks, and existing and 

proposed highway lanes 

Environmental Criteria 

Minimize impacts to parklands, including the Mojave National Preserve 

Minimize impacts to known cultural resources, wetlands, habitat area for threatened and endangered species, 

nature preserves 

Minimize the relocation of residences and commercial properties 

Minimize noise to residential properties and sensitive receptors 

Maximize connectivity with other transportation modes, including airports, monorail, and bus routes 

Maximize ridership and mode shift from auto to improve air quality, energy use and safety along I-15 corridor. 

Table 2-3 Federal Agency Alternatives Criteria 

Alternatives Criteria 

Consistent with goals and objectives of approved policies and plans 

Minimize conflicts while preserving safety and efficiency of existing highways and railroads 

Minimize significant effects to environmental values 

Minimize impacts to threatened and endangered species 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.2 Development of Action Alternatives 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-11 

2.2.1 RIDERSHIP AND MARKET PROJECTIONS

The Applicant has prepared a preliminary yet comprehensive ridership study7 which was 

independently reviewed by qualified specialists under the exclusive direction of the FRA.8 

The Applicant’s ridership study incorporated a comprehensive travel demand model that 

divided the Southern California area into zones (by postal zip codes), computed travel 

times and costs from those zones for the automobile and air travel modes, and then 

compared those modes to the time and cost of DesertXpress. The study also utilized an 

internet-based stated preference survey of selected Southern California residents (carried 

out in July 2005) to estimate how many existing auto and air trips to Las Vegas could 

potentially be diverted to DesertXpress.9 

The Applicant’s study forecast ridership for the year 2012, assuming application of the 

diesel (DEMU) technology, was based upon a 116 minute one-way travel time, and a fare 

of $55 per person each way. The actual travel time would vary between approximately 90 

minutes and 116 minutes depending upon the combination of alignment alternatives 

selected and whether the DEMU or EMU technology is used. The study found that the 

DEMU alternative would potentially capture 22.8 percent of the total 18.2 million annual 

trips between southern California and Las Vegas by 2012 (the first full start up year 

following a three year ramp-up period). This would represent a mode shift of 20.3 percent 

(or 3.4 million trips), from autos that would otherwise use I-15. On Fridays, when travel is 

at a peak, the Applicant’s study concluded that DesertXpress would capture an estimated 

17,630 total daily trips in 2012, and 19,520 on Sundays. At the baseline assumed average 

 

7 Desert Xpress Updated Ridership and Revenue Study, URS Corporation, December 2005. 

8 DesertXpress Ridership Forecast Review, Cambridge Systematics, January 2008. 

9 Three station locations in the Las Vegas area were tested, consistent with the four station options under 

consideration in this EIS (see discussion in Section 2.4.9 below). Two of these locations were near the Las 

Vegas Strip—a Southern option (west of the I-15 along Polaris Road, across I-15 from the Mandalay Bay Resort 

and Casino) and a Central strip option at West Flamingo Road adjacent to the Rio Suite Hotel and Casino. The 

third station evaluated was located near downtown Las Vegas adjacent to a proposed monorail station for the 

Downtown extension. The Southern and Central stations were tested with and without the assumption of a 

monorail spur constructed between the DesertXpress station and a monorail station. To maintain a fair 

comparison between DesertXpress and air travel, extended monorail service to the airport was also assumed 

in the study. As a variation, both Strip area stations were tested assuming a dedicated shuttle bus for

connecting service to the DesertXpress station rather than a direct monorail connection. 

The probability of a trip maker switching to high-speed rail was derived from how these respondents answered 

questions concerning the attractiveness of high-speed rail service. The model was developed using current 

information (2004) to describe variables such as security delays at airports, air travel to Las Vegas, and travel 

costs. In addition, a survey was taken of I-15 vehicles to establish the number of California residents coming to 

Las Vegas by auto. Future trip levels were based on expected Las Vegas visitation in 2012, and the growth of 

Southern California population. The baseline forecast assumes a $55 one-way fare in 2012, but the actual fare 

structure has not yet been adopted. Variations in travel time, fare level, and frequency of service can be 

utilized to ensure the results are equally applicable to both DEMU and EMU technology options. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.2 Development of Action Alternatives 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-12 

fare of $55 per one-way trip, the Applicant’s study estimated year 2012 ridership for the 

DEMU option would be over 4.1 million round trips. In a supplement to the Applicant’s 

study, it was noted that the EMU option, with a shorter travel time (100 minutes, 

compared to 116 minutes for the DEMU) and lower fare ($50) would attract a year 2012 

ridership of 5.1 million passengers. This would represent a mode shift of approximately 

25 percent from automobiles that would otherwise use I-15.10 

The ridership review conducted for FRA examined and evaluated the methodologies 

employed in the Applicant’s ridership study. The ridership review noted that numerous 

factors could alter the findings of the ridership study in both positive and negative 

directions. Following consideration of all of these factors and their relative potential to 

alter the findings, FRA’s ridership review concluded that the ridership forecast numbers 

prepared by the Applicant should be adjusted downwards by a factor of about 10 percent 

overall to represent a conservative estimate of potential ridership for the environmental 

analysis. The ridership review further stipulated that these downward adjustments should 

be applied to the forecasts of projected diversions from automobile trips originating from 

selected zones in Southern California. The Applicant’s ridership study and FRA’s 

ridership review are included as Appendix B. 

The ridership projections with adjustments based on FRA’s review were used as the basis 

for analysis in several sections of Chapter 3.0 of this EIS, including Section 3.2, Growth, 

3.5, Traffic and Transportation, 3.11, Air Quality and Global Climate Change, 3.12, Noise 

and Vibration, 3.13, Energy, and 3.16, Cumulative Impacts. The ridership projections 

utilized in this EIS analysis are also shown in Table 2-3 below. The FRA’s ridership review 

also included a recommended three-year ramp-up period, reaching the full projected 

forecast level of 10 percent less than the Applicant’s forecast in 2015. 

 

10 Sensitivity studies were completed using the 2012 trip tables. Fare level is a particularly strong variable in 

the automobile model, where the elasticity of demand with respect to fare is greater than 1, ranging from –1.2 

to –2.1 (which suggests that any given change in the fare would result in a greater change in ridership). Fare 

also is important, but not quite so strong, for the air travel model, with elasticities starting at -0.8 and ranging 

to –1.3 at the highest level. Detailed studies completed for this project showed that the automobile mode 

represents 89 percent of the total Southern California travel market; therefore, auto mode will always 

dominate overall ridership results. Because of this high elasticity, ridership decreases rapidly as fare 

increases. For example, at a $40 fare, ridership is 6.2 million annual round trips, while with a $70 fare, 

ridership drops to about 2.6 million per year. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.2 Development of Action Alternatives 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-13 

Table 2-3 Ridership Projections Utilized in EIS Analyses 

Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit 

(DEMU) Ridership Estimate 

Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) 

Ridership Estimate 

Opening Year 2012 

 Friday 8,334 10,574 

 Average Daily 5,335 6,773 

 Annually 1,947,478 2,472,305 

Year 2015 (following ramp-up) 

 Friday 15,624 19,824 

Average Daily 10,003 13,020 

 Annually 3,651,080 4,635,012 

Buildout Year 2027 

 Friday Riders 21,925 27,818 

Average Daily 14.037 17,820 

 Annual Riders 5,123,418 6,504,131 

Source: Cambridge Systematics, 2008; URS, 2005. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.3 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed From Further Analysis 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-14 

2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER 

ANALYSIS 

Two existing transportation corridors exist between Victorville and Las Vegas: the I-15 

freeway and the UPRR railroad. An alternative alignment was investigated that would 

follow the existing mainline UPRR alignment across the Mojave National Preserve 

(Preserve), through Cima and Kelso. While a UPRR alternative would enable the trains to 

avoid the steep grades along I-15, it would be a much longer, less direct route that would 

require the construction of new tracks through the Preserve alongside the UPRR tracks. 

Based on preliminary discussions with staff of the Preserve, the Applicant determined that 

this alignment would be less viable from an environmental impact perspective than 

following the median and/or north side of the I-15 alignment, which minimizes, to the 

greatest extent, any potential impacts to the Preserve. The Applicant also found this 

alternative would be significantly longer, with many speed-restricting curves which would 

add substantial travel time and thus fail to attract sufficient ridership. 

Similarly, it was considered that any alignment alternative within the urbanized portions 

of the Las Vegas Valley that would not follow existing major transportation corridors (i.e., 

existing freeways and railroad rights-of-way) would have the potential to result in 

substantial adverse impacts to urban/suburban areas (such as displacement of residents 

and businesses, increased noise and visual impacts, and impacts to property access). Such 

impacts would result largely from the incompatibility of high-speed train operations 

within existing residential and/or commercial developments. This resulted in the 

elimination of routes that would divert from major transportation corridors and instead 

follow existing streets and boulevards. 

Several other alternatives were eliminated for particular sections of the route. These are 

listed in Table 2-4, along with the rationale for their elimination. A subsequent key is 

provided to read Table 2-4. 

.
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS 2.3 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed FMarch 2009 

2-15 

Table 2-4 Reasons for Elimination of Potential Alignment Segments 

 Segment/Description Length 

(Miles) 

Reasons for Elimination Concerns 

 C I ROW C/A R/R E 

1-A Victorville to Lenwood (south of 

Barstow, California). This alignment would have been constructed west of the Mojave River, following the existing BNSF railroad corridor and Route 66 to a point just south of Barstow. 

22 P The alignment would dire

Prime Farmland/FarmlanImportance and would inthan 600 acres of such faalignment would also impresources, riparian habitaresources along the Mojaalignment would also travMojave Fishhook Cactus the alignment would travthe Route 66-Mojave RivDistrict, and would result major alteration of approarchitectural resources, iRoute 66. The communiand Helendale would alsof environmental justice 

1-J Victorville Station to Barstow via 

BNSF ROW. Rejected placing the intermodal terminal station located west of the Mojave River in vicinity. 

29.6 P S This alternative location i

reduces visibility and accnegatively impacts ridersviability. Adjacent uses arequire new access road road bridge over Mojave wetlands, habitat, biologifloodplains. Would also separation of the highwarelocation of a section of 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS 2.3 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed FMarch 2009 

2-16 

 Segment/Description Length 

(Miles) 

Reasons for Elimination Concerns 

 C I ROW C/A R/R E 

2 –J Alignment alternative eliminated 

from further consideration would traverses private, generally open land through Barstow and Yermo. Portions of route would pass through BNSF Barstow Yard and through residential neighborhoods. 

24.6 P S P Alignment is incompatibl

yard expansion; would caimpacts to residential pro

3-JA Yermo to Mountain Pass in I-15 

Freeway corridor. This alignment would have been constructed along the south side of the I-15 Freeway ROW 

84.2 S P An alignment south of th

encroach into the Mojave presenting permit constraenvironmentally sensitive ROW (outside of existing required. 

4-JA Mountain Pass to Primm via I-15 in 

the freeway median. 13.5 P S P The grades on I-15 in a 4

approach 6 percent. The grade for the project is 4alignment would require excavation with high retasignificant length to allow the existing I-15 ROW. Btoo steep for train operatalternative was eliminateconsideration. Potential environmental impacts oconstructability constrainmedian also eliminated tfurther consideration. 
DesertXpress 

Draft EIS 2.3 Alternatives Considered But Dismissed FMarch 2009 

2-17 

 Segment/Description Length 

(Miles) 

Reasons for Elimination Concerns 

 C I ROW C/A R/R E 

3/4-J Roughly parallels Segments 3 and 

4, but alignment would be solely in UPRR ROW or adjacent property. 

120 S P P This alignment alternativ

approximately 23 miles locorridor and would add ruproject. Longer, slower rridership, revenue, and fialignment alternative wourelocation of existing UPgrading. With greater lenrail facilities and passing National Preserve, this aenvironmental noise, visuimpacts to the Preserve aUPRR operations during 

5-JA Primm to Las Vegas via I-15 

Freeway. Generally, deviating from the I-15 ROW and passing through areas with existing and planned residential or commercial development.

39.5 S P P An alignment that would 

transportation corridors wto acquire properties with commercial developmentcostly and have noise anincompatible with adjace

5-JB Primm to Las Vegas via UPRR 

corridor where the alignment would deviate from the UPRR ROW and pass through existing residential development areas.

40.1 S P P Acquiring properties that 

residential or commerciabe very costly and would adjacent land uses from disruption of passing trai

Source: DesertXpress; CirclePoint, 2008. Definitions: Reason for Elimination: (P) Primary and (S) Secondary 

C=Construction: Engineering and construction complexity; initial and/or recurring costs that would render the project impractical; log

I=Incompatibility: Conflicts with land use designations or has insurmountable long term impact to highway or railroad operation. ROW=Right-of-way: Significant land cost. C/A=Connectivity / Accessibility: Inhibits or precludes convenient transfer to other modes or access to terminal station facilities. 

 R/R=Revenue / Ridership: Severe long term operation or maintenance cost; significant increase in running time over a more direct al

E=Environment: High potential for significant impacts to natural resources, including streams and wetlands and habitat of threatened 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

M a r c h 2 0 0 9 D r a f t E I S 

2-18 

2.3.1 TRAIN TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED

The Applicant considered various train technologies for the DesertXpress project, and 

sought to particularly identify a train with proven reliability that could be readily adapted 

to the unique desert environment of the Mojave/Las Vegas region and deliver reliable and 

rapid performance on the long and relatively steep grades along portions of the route. The 

Applicant found that steel-wheel train systems with distributed propulsion (with most of 

the passenger cars on the train being powered) the only viable technology and rejected 

other train technologies including magnetic levitation so as to allow for potential future 

system expansion without concerns regarding potentially proprietary technology, while 

ensuring the project’s economic viability. The Applicant also found magnetic levitation 

technology to be cost-prohibitive within a privately-funded project. (An objective for the 

Applicant was to develop a mobility alternative for the I-15 corridor without the use of any 

public funding). 

A conventional locomotive-hauled train with non-motorized passenger cars was initially 

studied by the Applicant, but eliminated after train simulation models showed 

unsatisfactory results in performance and predicted reliability on the route’s long, steep 

grades. 

Discussion of the DEMU and EMU technologies that remain under consideration in this 

EIS can be found in Section 2.4.9 below. 

2.4 ACTION ALTERNATIVES IN DETAIL 

The project corridor between Victorville and Las Vegas has been divided into seven 

segments for analysis purposes. Segments contain alternative alignments as summarized 

below. 

2.4.1 SEGMENT 1, VICTORVILLE TO LENWOOD (APPLICANT’S PROPOSED 

ALTERNATIVE) 

Segment 1 would depart from either of the two possible Victorville Station sites and head 

north generally following the west side of the I-15 corridor for a distance of 25 to 29 miles, 

depending on whether the alignment starts at Victorville station site 1 or 2. Only one 

alignment is being evaluated in this EIS for Segment 1. The alignment would diverge from 

the I-15 corridor near Hodge Road and head northerly to a point just south of Barstow 

near (but not within) the existing BNSF railroad corridor. 

Segment 1 would include a new bridge over or under the Mojave Northern Railroad and a 

second bridge over the BNSF mainline tracks, as well as eight roadway overpasses (to 

provide a fully grade-separated alignment). Segment 1 would have a maximum grade of 

about 2.5 percent. Figure 2-3 shows a typical section alongside I-15 where the 

DesertXpress tracks would fit within the existing I-15 right of way without requiring 

modification of reconstruction of the existing I-15 freeway. This typical cross section 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-19 

would also allow for potential future widening of the I-15 freeway. Figure 2-4 shows a 

typical section of the DesertXpress tracks situated on a retained embankment alongside I15. Figure 2-5 shows a typical aerial structure design where the new tracks would need to 

be grade separated. Segment 1 would use the grade separated tracks where the alignment 

would cross the existing I-15 interchanges. 

2.4.2 SEGMENT 2

2.4.2.1 Segment 2A/ 2B, Lenwood to Yermo via Barstow Routings 

From Lenwood to east of Barstow, Segments 2A and 2B would share the same alignment 

for 12 miles, then diverge for the next 9 miles. Throughout the EIS, this portion of the 

alignment is referred to as Segment2A/2B and the alternatives are combined for analysis. 

The remaining portion of Segment 2 where Alternative A and B alignments diverge is then 

referred to as Segment 2A and Segment 2B. Refer to Appendix A for the large-scale maps 

showing the detailed location of Segments 2A and 2B. Figure 2-1.2 also shows the location 

of Segments 2A and 2B. The first five miles of the combined alignment for Segment 

2A/2B would be on newly created tracks for exclusive high-speed rail use and would cross 

the Mojave River and turn east through the City of Barstow. Through the City of Barstow, 

the alignment would utilize a former Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe (AT&SF) railroad 

corridor along the north side of the Mojave River, for approximately three miles before 

reaching the vicinity of the I-15/Old Highway 58 interchange on the east side of Barstow. 11 

The combined Segment 2A/2B would require a bridge over the Mojave River, a bridge (or 

underpass) for roadways in the I-15/Old Highway 58 interchange area, and a bridge (or 

underpass) over or under the westbound lanes of I-15 near the agricultural inspection 

station, as well as seven grade-separated roadway overpasses. In this section, the design 

concept requires about 50 feet of width for the DEMU alternative and 60 feet for the EMU 

alternative and the cross streets in this segment would need to be grade separated using 

overpasses. Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 represent typical sections of the at-grade and 

retained embankment DesertXpress tracks. While I-15 is shown in these figures, the 

typical track cross-sections also apply to portions of Segment 2A and 2B that would be 

created on the new right-of-way for high-speed rail outside of the I-15 right-of-way. 

Figure 2-5 presents the typical design for the grade separated tracks used in Segments 2A 

and 2B as well. 

 

11 This portion of the former AT&SF right of way fell out of use when the railroad constructed a new line at the 

west end of their yard near Highway 58. Tracks were removed from this area at an unknown date. Because the 

tracks in question fell out of use due to a realignment, no petition for formal abandonment was required to be 

filed with or approved by the Surface Transportation Board. Personal communication, Don Bratton (Staubach 

Company; acting property managers for BNSF Railroad, 1/19/07; Christine Glaab, Surface Transportation 

Board librarian 1/4/07. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-20 

2.4.2.2 Segment 2A (Applicant’s Proposed Alternative) 

Upon emerging from the combined portion (Segment 2A/2B) near the I-15/Old Highway 

58 interchange on the east side of Barstow, Segment 2A would follow a more northerly 

course outside of the I-15 freeway corridor for 9.3 miles. 

2.4.2.3 Segment 2B 

Upon diverging from Segment 2A after the I-15/Old Highway 58 interchange on the east 

side of Barstow, would run along the north side of the I-15 corridor past the community of 

Yermo, to a point just east of the agricultural inspection station on I-15. Segment 2B is 

approximately 9.2 miles. 

2.4.3 SEGMENT 3 

2.4.3.1 Segment 3A, Yermo to Mountain Pass via Freeway Median 

Segment 3A would be located entirely within the median of the I-15 freeway, running 84.9 

miles. Generally, the existing median is approximately 100 feet wide (between edge of 

traveled way to edge of traveled way). The exception is in the community of Baker, where 

the median narrows considerably, where the I-15 freeway would need to be widened to the 

outside to provide room for the rail in the median, or alternatively, the alignment would 

need to diverge from the median or be placed on an aerial structure. The Plan and Profile 

Drawings in Appendix A show Alternative A diverging from the I-15 freeway median west 

of Baker and re-entering the freeway median east of East Baker Boulevard. 

It is assumed that a continuous concrete vehicle barrier would be required on both sides of 

the tracks, as well as American Railway Engineering Maintenance of Way Association 

(AREMA) crash barriers at all supporting columns of bridges at freeway interchanges and 

overpasses. Bridges for tracks would also have to be constructed where significant 

waterways cross I-15. Drainage for the trackway would be designed to integrate with the 

existing I-15 drainage system. 

Figure 2-6 shows the proposed typical cross-section in the median of I-15, which includes 

full median shoulders, barriers, the two DesertXpress tracks, and a parallel inspection and 

maintenance access road. This cross-section would also allow future widening of the I-15 

freeway. Grade-separated crossovers for California Highway Patrol and other authorized 

vehicles would be provided. Figure 2-7 shows the design concept of the grade separated 

DesertXpress tracks that would be used within the I-15 median at interchanges and 

overpasses to avoid conflicts with the existing overpass columns. A typical section of the 

design of the retained embankment of the DesertXpress tracks within the I-15 median is 

also shown in Figure 2-8. Figure 2-9 shows the typical median drainage treatment where 

the drainage from the median is tied into the existing I-15 drainage system. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-21 

2.4.3.2 Segment 3B, Yermo to Mountain Pass via Freeway Right-of-Way 

(Applicant’s Proposed Alternative) 

Segment 3B would be located along the north side of I-15 within the existing freeway 

right-of-way from Fort Irwin Road to Mountain Pass, running 84.8 miles. Figure 2-3 and 

Figure 2-4 show the typical design concept alongside I-15, which for the most part enables 

the DesertXpress tracks, drainage, parallel access road, and separation barrier to be 

constructed within the existing I-15 right of way, while still leaving sufficient space for 

future I-15 widening. Figure 2-5 shows the typical design concept of the grade separated 

aerial structures for the DesertXpress tracks that would be used for crossing roadways and 

at the I-15 interchanges, from the on-off ramps. 

2.4.4 SEGMENT 4 

2.4.4.1 Segment 4A, Mountain Pass to Primm via Nipton Road 

(Applicant’s Proposed Alternative) 

Segment 4A extends for 14.0 miles. Segment 4A would leave the I-15 freeway corridor at 

the point that the grade exceeds 4.5 percent, just east of Mountain Pass. Segment 4A 

would head south for approximately four miles before returning to the I-15 freeway 

corridor south of Primm. An approximately 1.55 mile portion of this alignment may 

encroach on the Mojave National Preserve near the intersection of Nipton Road and 

Ivanpah Road, all within about 0.5 miles of I-15. While portions of Segment 4A would not 

be adjacent to I-15 or within the I-15 right-of-way, Figure 2-3 represents a typical section 

of the DesertXpress tracks in this segment. 

As with Segment 3, when in the median, a continuous concrete truck barrier would be 

required on either side of the tracks, as well as AREMA crash barriers at all supporting 

columns of bridges at freeway interchanges and overpasses (same as shown in Figure 2-6). 

Bridges for tracks would also be constructed over the northbound lanes of I-15 at each end 

of the dogleg into and out of the median and over Nipton Road. Also, a portion of the 

alignment would follow (and bridge over where necessary) a significant drainage way 

running parallel to I-15 from Mountain Pass. 

2.4.4.2 Segment 4B, Mountain Pass to Primm via Clark Mountains 

Segment 4B would leave the I-15 freeway right-of-way and head northeast, passing 

through two new dual track tunnels (one approximately 5,000 feet long and the other 

approximately 1,300 feet long), then descend along the eastern slope of the Clark 

Mountains on a 4.5 percent grade, before returning to the I-15 corridor south of Primm 

where the tracks would pass over the southbound lanes of I-15 to enter the median. The 

proposed tunneling activities would be administered through monitored targeted blasts 

and charges. Spoil material that would result from tunneling would be used for fill 

material for other segments of track. At Primm, the track would cross over the 

northbound lanes of I-15 and continue northward along the east side of the I-15 corridor. 

Figure 2-4 shows the typical design concept for a significant portion of this segment, 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-22 

where the alignment would be on a side slope and some use of retaining walls likely would 

be required both above the tracks and below them. The retained embankment in Segment 

4 would not, however, be located adjacent to the existing I-15 freeway, as shown in Figure 

2-4. Segments 4B would extend 12.9 miles in full. 

2.4.5 SEGMENT 5 

2.4.5.1 Segment 5A, Primm to Jean via Freeway Median 

Segment 5A would be entirely within the median of I-15, running 24.6 miles. The design 

concept is similar to the median alternative in Segment 3 (see Figure 2-6). In sections 

where the median would be too narrow to achieve the required median cross section, the 

I-15 shoulders would be extended on both sides to create the required median width in 

accordance with NDOT and Federal Highway Administration geometric design 

requirements or the train would be placed on an aerial structure. 

2.4.5.2 Segment 5B, Primm to Jean via Freeway Right-of-Way 

(Applicant’s Proposed Alternative) 

Segment 5B would continue along the east side of the I-15 corridor between Primm and 

Jean within the existing freeway right-of-way for 24.6 miles. The design concept for this 

segment is essentially similar to that shown in Figure 2-3, except that the train would be 

on the east instead of west side of I-15. 

2.4.6 SEGMENT 6

Within Segment 6, where the area traversed by the alignment becomes more urbanized 

and there is insufficient width available to implement the design treatments used in 

Segments 1-5, the tracks would be placed on new elevated structures. This applies to both 

alignment alternatives, Segments 6A and Segment 6B. Specific locations within the 

alignments where elevated structures would be used can be seen in the plan and profile 

drawings included in Appendix A. 

If the Downtown station option is selected, Segment 6 would bypass the Southern station 

and terminate just north of Tropicana Avenue. See the discussion of Segment 7 below. 

2.4.6.1 Segment 6A, Jean to Southern or Central Passenger Stations via 

Freeway Median 

Segment 6A would continue in the median of I-15 into the Southern, Central “A” or 

Central “B” passenger stations, a distance of about 14 miles. 

After entering the urbanized area, a significant portion of this alternative would be located 

on an aerial structure, due to the large number of major interchanges and overpasses that 

would need to be traversed, as well as the proximity of urbanized development to the 

existing freeway right of way. Where the tracks are feasible in the median, a continuous 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-23 

concrete vehicle barrier would be provided on either side of the tracks, as well as AREMA 

crash barriers at all supporting columns of bridges at freeway interchanges. Figure 2-5 

shows the typical elevated design concept that would be applied in the median within the 

urbanized areas of this segment. 

2.4.6.2 Segment 6B, Jean to Southern or Central Passenger Stations via 

Freeway Right-of-Way (Applicant’s Proposed Alternative) 

Segment 6B would cross the I-15 corridor from the east side to the west side and continue 

along the west side of the I-15 corridor into the Southern, Central “A” or Central “B” 

passenger stations, a distance of about 14 miles. Bridges for tracks would be constructed 

over the northbound lanes of I-15 just north of Primm and over the UPRR. As with 

Segment 6A, it is assumed that significant sections of this alignment could require placing 

the tracks on elevated structures to provide sufficient space for railroad operations and 

account for the proximity of adjacent urban development. Figure 2-5 shows the typical 

elevated design concept that would be applied on the side of the freeway within the 

urbanized areas of this segment. 

2.4.6.3 Segment 6C, Jean to Central A/B Passenger Stations via UPRR 

Corridor 

Option C would diverge from Segment 6A/6B near the community of Sloan and generally 

follow the existing UPRR corridor (primarily within the UPRR right-of-way) into either of 

the Central passenger station options, a distance of about 16 miles, depending on the 

terminus. Option C would not connect to the Southern station. 

In some sections of this segment, there appears to be sufficient width for the two new 

DesertXpress tracks to be constructed alongside the UPRR tracks, but with elevated or 

underground grade separations over or under all UPRR spur tracks. DesertXpress tracks 

would be a minimum of 50 feet from the UPRR tracks, as Cal-Nevada has a high pressure 

gasoline pipeline in the UPRR right-of-way. In some sections of Option C, it would be 

necessary for the DesertXpress tracks to be placed on a new aerial structure. Figure 2-5 

represents the typical aerial structures used for the grade separated DesertXpress tracks in 

this segment. 

2.4.7 SEGMENT 7 

The Segment 6 Action Alternatives would terminate at either the Southern, Central “A” or 

Central “B” station options (excepting Option C, which could not terminate at the 

Southern station option). If, and only if, the Downtown Las Vegas station is selected as 

the terminus, the Segment 7 alignment options would be utilized. If the Segment 7 

alignment option is utilized, Segment 6 would bypass the Southern station option and 

terminate at West Twain Avenue. Segment 7 would then originate at West Twain Avenue 

and continue into the proposed Downtown Las Vegas passenger station. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-24 

2.4.7.1 Segment 7A, West Twain Avenue to Downtown Station via 

Freeway Median 

From West Twain Avenue, Alternative A would continue the pattern from Segment 6, with 

the alignment in the I-15 median. Segment 7A would bypass the Central A and Central B 

station sites, and continue in the I-15 median toward the Downtown Las Vegas passenger 

station, crossing under existing I-15 overpasses en route, a total distance of about 4.9 

miles. Portions of Segment 7A could be placed on aerial structures due to limited width of 

the I-15 median in this urbanized corridor. Figure 2-7 shows the typical elevated design 

concept within the median for this segment. 

2.4.7.2 Segment 7B, West Twain Avenue to Downtown Station via 

Freeway Right-of-Way (Applicant’s Proposed Alternative) 

From West Twain Avenue, Action Alternative B would continue the pattern from Segment 

6, with the alignment in the I-15 corridor. Segment 7B would bypass the Central A and 

Central B station sites, and would continue in the I-15 corridor toward the Downtown Las 

Vegas passenger station, crossing under existing I-15 overpasses en route, a total of about 

5.0 miles. Portions of Segment 7B would be placed on aerial structures due to limited 

width of the I-15 median in this urbanized corridor. Figure 2-5 represents the typical 

aerial structures used for the grade separated DesertXpress tracks in this segment. 

2.4.7.3 Segment 7C, West Twain Avenue to Downtown Station via UPRR 

Corridor 

Option C would be utilized in Segment 7 only if it were elected in preceding Segment 6. 

Option C would begin at West Twain Avenue within the UPRR corridor and would 

continue within the UPRR corridor to the Downtown Las Vegas station. Portion of this 

option would be placed on aerial structures due to the urbanized nature of this corridor; 

the typical aerial structures used for the grade separated DesertXpress tracks are 

illustrated in Figure 2.5. Segment 7C would be about 4.5 miles in length. 

2.4.8 HIGH-SPEED TRAIN TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS 

The Applicant has selected existing European intercity high-speed trains, customized for 

the unique setting of the corridor. Both diesel/electric multiple unit (DEMU) and electric 

multiple unit (EMU) train sets are being considered as high-speed train technology 

options. The Applicant has identified two Bombardier train sets, the Meridian and 

Regina, as representative examples of the respective DEMU and EMU technology options. 

Meridian DEMU trains are currently operating in the United Kingdom; various 

derivations of the Regina EMU trains are currently operating in Sweden and China. The 

DEMU train set is projected to operate at a maximum speed of 125 mph. The EMU train 

set could have a maximum speed of 125 mph or 150 mph. 

Detailed train simulations studies for the Applicant’s Preferred Action Alternative 

Alignment have been run for 10-car trains. This length was based on the peak travel 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-25 

demand forecast. Simulation results showed that seven to eight of the train cars would be 

powered, although all train cars could be self-propelled. This configuration provides the 

high power-to-weight ratio and distributed traction needed to follow the I-15 corridor and 

negotiate the steep grades through the two desert mountain passes (the Applicant’s design 

criteria limits slopes to a 4.5 percent maximum grade). 

However, the EMU trains are wider and longer than the DEMU trains, which enable each 

EMU train to carry approximately 41 percent more passengers than a DEMU train. As 

previously noted, the EMU option would require the addition of 17 autotransformers and 

three electrical substations along the route. The autotransformers would be located at 

approximately 10-mile intervals along the rail alignment. Locations for these 

autotransformers are shown in Figures 2-1.1 through 2-1.7. Appendix A also provides 

detailed locations of the autotransformers, as seen in the Plan and Profile drawings and 

the large-scale maps. The three electrical substations would be located on the sites of the 

Victorville OMSF, Baker MOW, and Sloan MSF facilities. The substation diagrams and 

layouts are as shown on the detailed site plan drawings for the referenced maintenance 

facilities within Appendix A. EMU and DEMU train lengths, platform width 

requirements, and other differing features of the train sets are identified in Table 2-6 

below. 

Table 2-6 Summary of Key Operating Features, DEMU and EMU 

DEMU (Meridian) EMU (Regina) 

Train Length 232 meters (±761.2 feet) 267 meters (±876.0 feet) 

Platform Length Required 250 meters (±820.2 feet) 280 meters (±918.6 feet) 

Passenger Capacity Per Ten-Car 

Train 

478 675 

Top Speed 125 miles per hour 125-150 miles per hour 

Average Speed 100 mph 112 mph or greater 

Approximate One-Way Travel 

Time Between Victorville and 

Las Vegas 

116 minutes 100 minutes at 125 mph top 

speed; 84 minutes at 150 mph top 

speed 

Source: DesertXpress 

As a standard gauge steel-wheel on steel-rail system, DesertXpress would be readily 

expandable and could accommodate other models of standard-gauge passenger trains. 

Trains would be operated under manual control and would be equipped with cab signaling 

that enables the train operator to receive speed commands for each section of the route, 

with an automatic train protection system that includes over-speed detection and 

automatic braking in the event a train operator were to exceed the allowable speed 

command. A central Operations Control Center (OCC), located within the Victorville 

OMSF, would control the routing of trains, cab signals and track switches. Each train 

would be equipped with state-of-the-art safety features, including backup emergency 

communications in the event of a primary loss of power. However, by selecting a 

distributed power system rather than a locomotive-hauled train, the train technology 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-26 

would be inherently very reliable, such that loss of propulsion within any car would not 

materially affect the safe and reliable performance of the entire train. 

2.4.9 PROJECT COMPONENTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES

2.4.9.1 Project Operation Components 

Operating Plan 

Detailed train performance simulations have been completed to estimate travel time. The 

travel time results were incorporated into a preliminary operations plan, which was 

reviewed by FRA as part of this EIS. Appendix C contains the FRA review of the 

operations plan. 

The operations plan examined both technologies under consideration, the Electric 

Multiple Unit (EMU) or Regina trainset and the Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit (DEMU) or 

Meridian trainset. 

The plan estimates that the peak operational fleet required to meet the peak daily demand 

would be range from 12 (EMU) to 16 (DEMU) trains of 10 cars each, plus spares, in the 

first full year of operation (2012). 

The entire mainline section between Victorville and Las Vegas would incorporate dual 

tracks, one northbound and one southbound, to support the high ridership and frequency 

of train operation. The “normal,” or nominal, direction of travel would follow the NorthAmerican practice of right-hand running. All tracks would be signaled for bi-directional 

operation should operating in reverse on a track be necessary. 

The preliminary Operations Plan assumes that trains would operate between 

approximately 0600 hours and 2200 hours (6 a.m. to 10 p.m.), 365 days per year. The 

hours of service could be extended if passenger demand should warrant additional 

operation. 

The initial train composition is a ten vehicle train. Passenger capacities for DEMU trains 

would be about 478; for EMU trains, which have slightly longer and wider cars, capacity 

would be about 675 passengers. On either train, one of the ten cars would be configured 

as an entertainment car. 

Supervision of train movements, station operation, and wayside equipment would be 

provided by authorized personnel in the OCC located at the Victorville facility in the 

administration building. The OCC staff would be responsible for all functions and 

procedures performed on the main line. Accordingly, the OCC staff would have the 

capability to monitor and govern various aspects of the system through dynamic displays, 

status reports, voice and visual communication, and through commands/instructions via 

their computer interfaces. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-27 

At the maintenance facility and layover yards, speed commands and OCC supervision 

would extend into the entry point of the yard. From the entry of the yard to the storage 

tracks, the trains would be operated manually (15 mph maximum). The switches in yards 

would still be interlocked and controlled by the OCC. Switches at the direct leads to the 

maintenance building would not be under the supervision of the OCC and would be 

manually operated as trains are moved in and out of the maintenance building. 

Bombardier, as well as the project Applicant’s independent technology consultants, 

Interfleet Technologies Ltd. from the UK, has performed a preliminary analysis and 

simulation of the DesertXpress High-speed Rail System using the following maximum 

parameters applicable to the EMU operating system: 

• maximum cruise speed of 125 mph (and, for the EMU option only, alternate 

top speed of 150 mph) 

• maximum acceleration rate of 1.8 mph/s (0.75 meters/second) 

• maximum deceleration rate of 2.5 mph/s; and 

• maximum actual super elevation of 6.0 inches. 

Depending upon the direction of travel and the specific alignment and station locations, 

one-way travel times are in the range of 84 to 100 minutes for the EMU technology option, 

to 116 minutes for the DEMU technology option. DEMU average speeds would be 

approximately 100 mph while EMU average speeds would be approximately 112 mph with 

a 125 mph top speed. At a top speed of 150 mph the average speed would be 

approximately 130 mph. Shorter alignments would enable a shorter travel time. 

To meet the projected ridership, trains would depart from both ends of the line on 20 to 

30 minute frequencies during peak weekend hours and up to approximately once per hour 

during the week. 

FRA’s review of the operations plan (Appendix C) found that the operating proposals set 

forth by DesertXpress were reasonable and set forth suggestions for the project Applicant 

to consider as operating plans continue to evolve. 

Safety and Security 

All alignment routings would include several cross-track switches at prescribed intervals 

to enable continuity of high-speed train service in the event of a track blockage. 

Equipment redundancy, high reliability, daily service and inspection in conjunction with 

preventive maintenance schedules, failure monitoring of vehicle and wayside equipment, 

and corrective responses would ensure a high level of DesertXpress service availability. In 

the event of minor failures, trains would continue to operate with little or no impact on 

service. In addition, a failure and emergency response system would be in place to govern 

response to partial or full system stoppages requiring immediate intervention by 

authorized personnel. Response personnel would be on call 24 hours a day to quickly 

address such failures and emergencies. The DesertXpress failure management system 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-28 

would also rely on a variety of strategies to minimize the downtime and passenger 

inconvenience caused by vehicle and wayside failures. These would include: 

• Automatic responses at the subsystem and/or the system level; 

• Local (manual) reset of equipment; 

• Remote reset of equipment by the Operations Control Center; 

• Recovery/removal of a failed train with a revenue train or a recovery train; 

• Replacement of failed train with hot standby train 

• Alternate routing using shuttles and bypass routes, and 

• Appropriate inspection checks on tracks before service is restored. 

If service must be suspended around a problem site for any extended period, the 

Operations Control Center would implement a shuttle, bypass or short turnback strategy 

to provide reduced service for the remainder of the System. 

Peak demand is met by providing the train length (number of cars per train) and 

frequency of service required to meet the projected demand. The preliminary ridership 

and revenue forecasts indicate that 10-car trains would be sufficient to carry the demand 

for the foreseeable future. Thus, the Applicant’s Operating plan shows that each train 

would consist of ten cars with service operating at 20-minute frequencies during the 

highest demand periods. As ridership demand increases over time, peak period ticket 

pricing strategies would be used, such that 20-minute service frequency is anticipated by 

the Applicant to be sufficient for many years. If necessary at some point to meet 

additional demand, longer trains could be used, or additional 10-car trains would be put in 

service to provide higher capacity through more frequent scheduling. 

Any fault occurring on any vehicle unit would be regarded as a train fault. There are 

numerous types of faults that possibly could occur with varying degrees of (potential) 

impact to system availability or threat to passenger safety. For this reason, onboard faults 

are characterized by the responses they would invoke, both by the OCC and by the train 

crew. Responses to train faults would range from the fault being noted and fixed at the 

next scheduled maintenance period to the emergency braking of the train. In the event of 

a train obstructing the alignment for extended periods, a degraded service mode would be 

implemented and the hot standby train, a recovery train, or the nearest in-service train, 

would be sent to clear the track. In the event of an emergency requiring immediate train 

evacuation, which would only occur very infrequently, train passengers would be 

evacuated to the 10 foot wide minimum maintenance road area that would run adjacent to 

the trackway or other suitable location, following review and approval of the System Safety 

Plan by the appropriate emergency services organizations. 

The DesertXpress tracks in either the DEMU or EMU technology option would be fenced. 

To protect against guideway or right-of-way entry by unauthorized persons or objects, 

chain link fencing, at a minimum of 6 feet in height, would be provided between any 

barrier structure and the train tracks, at a distance of approximately 30 inches from the 

centerline of the barrier. In some segments, fencing may also be mounted on top of the 

barrier, with a combined minimum height of 6 feet. Fencing would not be required where 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-29 

any barrier or retaining wall would exceed 6 feet in height. Transformers placed at regular 

intervals along the route would be located within the median of the fenced alignment, 

preventing unauthorized access. If the EMU technology option is selected, additional 

safety features would be integrated into the project. For example, fencing would be 

provided to restrict access to electrical equipment. The three substations required in the 

EMU technology option would be separately fenced and secured. 

All fenced areas of the DesertXpress right-of-way that could be accessed on foot would 

incorporate an intrusion detection system. The intrusion detection system would include 

continuity wire loops that are capable of detecting large objects that may strike or rupture 

the chain link fence. The intrusion detection system would be tied into the train control 

system to allow either warning of train stop, as detailed in the Safety and Security Plan 

and Hazards Analysis being prepared by the Applicant. The Safety and Security Plan and 

detailed Hazards Analysis would be incorporated into the DesertXpress standard 

operating procedures. 

Intrusion detection systems would also be provided as part of the DesertXpress project as 

required by the FRA. To protect the DesertXpress tracks against intrusion by unguided 

automotive vehicles, including motorcycles, automobiles, and trucks, barriers would be 

placed near the edge of the highway shoulder lanes. For the at grade DesertXpress tracks 

adjacent to or within the median of the I-15 freeway, permanent concrete barriers would 

be installed between the tracks and the roadway, per Caltrans’ and Nevada Department of 

Transportation (NDOT) requirements. Where the DesertXpress tracks are located on an 

elevated structure more than 6 feet above grade, no barrier would be required. 

Overhead highway structures adjacent to or crossing the DesertXpress right-of-way would 

be protected by crash walls surrounding the base piers. The crash walls would be 

specifically designed to withstand the impact of a derailed train and to deflect a derailed 

train away from the supporting structure. At a minimum, these crash walls would be 

installed per the requirements of American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way 

Associated (AREMA) Manual for Railway Engineering. Curved overhead highway 

structures would also include highway barriers in compliance with Caltrans and Nevada 

DOT standards. Additionally, any overpass crossing the DesertXpress tracks would 

require a minimum clearance of approximately 16 feet, 9 inches. Chain link fencing on the 

roadway overpasses would also be constructed to protect objects from falling onto the 

DesertXpress trackway. 

2.4.9.2 Alignment Features 

Where the DesertXpress alignment would be within the I-15 corridor, continuous concrete 

vehicle barriers, as well as AREMA crash barriers at all supporting columns of bridges at 

freeway interchanges and overpasses would be provided. Tracks would be spaced 15 feet 

apart. The I-15 median alternative would include drainage bunds, channels, and utilities. 

Final design for all segments of the project in the median or immediate proximity to I-15 

would be reviewed and approved by Caltrans, NDOT, and FHWA. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-30 

The system would use #20 high-speed switches to facilitate recovery and bypass 

strategies. The #20 switch utilizes two machines for switch point movement and permits 

a maximum tangent speed of 125 mph and a maximum turnout speed of 50 mph. 

Switches for the sidings would be #10. 

As a fully grade-separated passenger railway, structures and bridges would be constructed 

at major crossings of roads, rail tracks,12 and waterways or floodways, including the 

Mojave River crossing at Lenwood Road, Oro Grande along Route 66, Fort Irwin Road in 

Barstow, the Highway Patrol Inspection Station on I-15, the Flamingo Wash, and other 

features. In addition, switch tracks may require additional crossings over I-15 or any of 

the noted major features. River crossings would require approval of the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (404(b)1 approval). 

2.4.9.3 Built Facilities 

The proposed action would include the construction of one passenger station at each end 

of the rail corridor (Victorville plus one in Clark County or the City of Las Vegas). Stations 

would meet accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A 

major maintenance, storage, and operations facility would be located in Victorville, 

southeast of the Victorville station site options. A secondary maintenance and storage 

facility would be located in Clark County. These are discussed in detail below. With the 

exception of Segment 7 and the associated Downtown Las Vegas Station (described 

below), no station or maintenance facility option would be attached to a single project 

alternative. Any of the proposed alignments would utilize any of the station and 

maintenance facility options. 

Stations have been laid out by the Applicant to initially use two tracks and accommodate 

the addition of a third track in the future when peak operating frequencies greater than 

one train departing every 20 minutes may be required. The station footprints provide 

sufficient space for future expansion to include a third track and platform. Current travel 

forecasts indicate that peak period operating frequencies of 20 minutes could suffice for 

many years as peak pricing policies are adopted. 

Victorville Station Options 

Two sites north of central Victorville are being considered for the Victorville station. Both 

sites are located immediately west of I-15 and both stations sites would serve both 

Alternative A and B alignments. Segment 1 of the alignment would initiate from the 

selected station site. Site 1 is located just north of the southern Stoddard Wells Road exit 

(Exit #154); Site 2 is located to the northwest of the northern Stoddard Wells Road exit 

(Exit #157). The two site options are located about 1.5 miles apart. Figures 2-10 – 2-13 

show site plans and section views for the two Victorville station site options. 

 

12 Any over or undercrossings of operational rail tracks is potentially subject to approval by the STB under 49 

U.S.C. 10901(d)(1). 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-31 

The facilities directly associated with the either station site would occupy about 100 acres 

and would have a parking capacity for approximately 13,000 to 18,000 vehicles in selfparking lots, valet parking areas, and a proposed parking structure. 

The Victorville station would offer train ticketing, baggage handling, and hotel room 

check-in for Las Vegas resorts. The train station would be compatible with land use plans 

already proposed by the City of Victorville for mixed-use development served by local 

transit, and with highway access. 

Operations, Maintenance, and Storage Facility Options 

Each of the two Victorville station site options is paired with a particular site for an 

operations, maintenance, and storage facility (OMSF). Both OMSF site options fall within 

the vicinity of Segment 1 and could serve either Alternative A or Alternative B alignments. 

The facility would require approximately 50 acres13 and would include a train washing 

facility, repair shop, parts storage, operations control center, and a fueling station (for the 

DEMU option only). 

OMSF site option 1, which would function with Victorville Station Site 1, would be located 

in the City of Victorville on a site that lies within the General Plan’s North Mojave 

Planning Area to the southwest of proposed Victorville station site 1. 

OMSF site option 2, which would function with Victorville Station Site 1 or 2, would be 

located north of station site 2, near the intersection with Dale Evans Parkway. A portion 

of OMSF site option 2 would fall within the jurisdiction of the City of Victorville; the entire 

site is under the jurisdiction of San Bernardino County. 

Within the OMSF, the OCC would provide continuous monitoring of the train operations. 

Central control room personnel would have the ability to communicate directly with each 

train and with emergency response personnel throughout the route. Additionally, once 

inside the OMSF maintenance yard, the trains would be manually operated and moved 

with a tractor to minimize locomotive emissions within the yard. Approximately 400 

employees would be based at the maintenance facility and operations center. 

Figure 2-14 provides a plan view of site option 1 for the OMSF; Figure 2-15 provides a plan 

view for site option 2. 

 

13 Site envelopes for the OMSF range in size from about 95 acres to 260 acres. Entire sites were analyzed in 

this EIS, although the final footprint of the OMSF is expected to be notably smaller than the areas surveyed. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-32 

Las Vegas Area Station Options 

Four options are being considered for the Las Vegas passenger station: 

• Southern Station, along Polaris Road, between West Russell Road and West 

Hacienda Drive, across I-15 from the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino (as 

shown in Figures 2-16 and 2-17); 

• Central Station A, between West Flamingo Road and West Twain Avenue, 

adjacent to the Rio Suites Hotel property (as shown in Figures 2-18 and 2-19); 

• Central Station B, south of West Flamingo Road, in an area along the UPRR 

right of way that is currently occupied industrial/light industrial uses. (Figures 

2-20 and 2-21) 

• Downtown Station, in the City of Las Vegas, along South Main Street between 

West Bonneville Avenue and Boulder Avenue (see Figures 2-22 and 2-23). 

The Southern, Central “A” or Central “B” passenger stations would be utilized with 

Segments 6A or 6B and serve as the terminus for those segments. Segment 6C could 

extend only to the Central “A” and Central “B” station sites. Segments 7A, 7B and 7C 

would be needed if, and only if, the Downtown station is selected as the terminus for the 

preferred alternative. 

All potential Las Vegas station options are in close proximity to the Las Vegas Strip and 

related attractions which would be accessible via taxis, shuttle buses, and potential future 

extensions of the Las Vegas Monorail. Only one station would be utilized in the preferred 

alternative. 

The facilities directly associated with the station site would occupy about 30 to 60 acres, 

depending on location. Each station would include parking for approximately 2,000 

vehicles and passenger pick-up/drop off area. 

Las Vegas Area Maintenance and Storage Facility 

A light maintenance, storage, cleaning, and inspection facility would also be built near the 

northern terminus of the project. The facility would require approximately 7 to 10 acres. 

Three site options are under consideration for the Las Vegas area Maintenance and 

Storage Facility (MSF), as shown in Figure 2-24. 

Sloan Road: This site is located along Segment 5 in unincorporated Clark County, 

approximately 5 miles south of Sloan Road, on the east side of I-15. The site is between 

the I-15 freeway and South Las Vegas Boulevard (Nevada State Route 604), near where 

Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crosses from east to west side of I-15. 

Wigwam Avenue and Robindale Avenue: These two sites are located in 

unincorporated Clark County, west of the I-15 freeway, and about one half mile south of 

Blue Diamond Boulevard (Nevada State Route 160). 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-33 

Figures 2-25 through 2-27 depict site plan options for the Las Vegas area MSF. Detailed 

facility footprints and elevation drawings are included in Appendix A. 

2.4.9.4 Autotransformers and Substations 

If the Electrical Multiple Unit (EMU) technology option is selected, propulsion power 

would need to be delivered along the alignment by a series of autotransformers and 

electrical substations. 

Three substations would be needed along the entire route, one near each end of the rail 

line and one near the midpoint. The substations near the ends of the rail line would be 

located on the corresponding O/MSF sites. The three electrical substations would be 

located on the sites of the Victorville OMSF, Baker MOW, and Sloan MSF facilities. The 

midpoint substation would be located on the site also designated for the maintenance of 

way facility in Baker. Substation diagrams and layouts are as shown on the detailed site 

plan drawings for the referenced maintenance facilities within Appendix A. 

Preliminary engineering identified the need for a total of 17 autotransformers, spaced at 1o 

to 12 mile intervals along the alignment. These autotransformers help to maintain and 

regulate the voltage along the line. Each autotransformer would require a physical 

footprint of about one-tenth to one-fifth of an acre. Locations for these autotransformers 

are shown in Figures 2-1.1 through 2-1.7. Appendix A also provides detailed locations of 

the autotransformers, as seen in the Plan and Profile drawings and the large-scale maps. 

2.4.9.5 Utility Corridors 

Under the EMU technology option, utility corridors would be implemented to provide 

power line paths to feed the four DesertXpress substations. There are three proposed 

utility corridors listed below and shown on Figures 2-1.1, 2-1, 4, and 2-1.6, as well as on 

larger maps within Appendix A-2. 

• Victorville OMSF: A utility corridor parallel to I-15 that would provide 

connection to either OMSF Site 1 and OMSF Site 2 

• Baker MOW: A utility corridor from the Southern California Edison 

substation at Nickle Mountain Road following Silver Lane to Arnold Avenue to 

the Baker MOW Facility Site. 

• Sloan MSF: A utility corridor from the Nevada Power Transmission Line, 

served by the Nevada Power Big Horn Substation located north of Primm, to 

the Sloan Road MSF site adjacent to I-15. 

There are two potential electricity source options for the utility corridor to the Victorville 

OMSF site options. One option would be to connect to the existing Southern California 

electric transmission “grid,” while the second option would connect to a proposed 

substation that is planned to be built by the Victorville Municipal Utilities District on the 

west side of the Mojave River. Both of these electricity source options would utilize the 

same utility corridor. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-34 

The utility corridor right-of-way would have a typical width of approximately 100 feet. 

The access road contained in the corridor would be approximately 10 feet wide. The tower 

height of the elevated utility lines would range from 95 feet to 135 feet, depending upon 

land mark clearance. Tower spacing would range from 440 feet to 940 feet depending on 

tower height and necessary clearance. Each tower footprint would be approximately 24 

square feet to 59 square feet in size, depending on the height of the tower. Typical tower 

configurations are shown in Appendix A. The utility towers would use a typical voltage of 

230Kv transmission, with 66Kv for power distribution. 

2.4.9.6 Maintenance of Way Facility 

The proposed action also includes a maintenance-of-way (MOW) facility. The MOW 

facility would be located on a 2.4 acre site containing a 5,200 square foot building, plus 

tail tracks, a radio signal tower, fuel storage, and other related facilities that would serve 

as a headquarters for DesertXpress employees charged with daily inspection of tracks and 

associated facilities to ensure ongoing safe operations. See Appendix A-4 for a detailed 

site plan diagram of the MOW facility. 

With any action alternative, the MOW facility would be located on the same land as is 

designated for Temporary Construction Area #9, near Baker, California. 

2.4.9.7 Components of Project Construction 

Temporary Construction Areas 

Table 2-7 below identifies the proposed temporary construction areas (TCAs), their 

locations, and the segments each would serve. Several TCAs would be located in part or in 

whole on proposed sites for stations and/or maintenance facilities, or would otherwise be 

within an area the proposed alignment would permanently impact. Other TCAs are 

located outside any permanent impact area. Table 2-7 distinguishes between these two 

types of TCAs. TCA locations are shown on Figures 2-1.1 – 2-1.7. 

The contractor for the proposed action would develop a construction water program to 

designate the water sources used during construction. As it is not anticipated that wells 

would be drilled to supply water, construction of the proposed action would not result in 

permanent impacts at any of the temporarily impacted TCAs. Water would likely be 

trucked in to the construction areas or supplied by existing pipelines. 
DesertXpress Alternatives 

Draft EIS 2.4 Action Alternatives In Detail 

March 2009 Draft EIS 

2-35 

Table 2-7 Temporary Construction Areas 

TCA 

No. 

Location Within a 

Permanent 

Impact Area? 

Size Segment(s) Served 

1A At proposed site of Victorville OMSF 

Site 1 

Partially 142.06 acres 1 

1B At proposed site of Victorville OMSF 

Site 2 

No 135.01 acres 1 

2 At proposed Victorville station site #2 Partially 14.14 acres 1 

3 Near Lenwood, on northern bank of 

Mojave River at proposed new bridge 

No 0.9 acre 2A/2B 

4 Barstow, adjacent to BNSF spur line No 14.82 acres 2A/2B 

5 Yermo, east of Yermo Road/I-15 

interchange 

No 5.23 acres 2A/B 

6 Along I-15, southwest of Field Road 

interchange 

No 5.82 acres 3A/3B 

7 Along I-15, north of Basin Road 

interchange 

No 5.85 acres 3A/3B 

8 West of Baker, between I-15 and 

Baker Blvd 

No 1.9 acres 3A/3B 

9 East of Baker, between I-15 and Baker 

Blvd 

Yes 9.63 acres 3A/3B 

10 North of I-15 at Cima Road No 5.59 acres 3A/3B 

11 West of I-15 at Yates Well Road No 10.22 acres 4A 

12 Northwest of I-15/Yates Well Road 

interchange 

No 10.42 acres 4B 

13 South of Sloan Road near UPRR 

undercrossing of I-15 

No 11.49 acres 5A/5B 

14 Along UPRR Corridor @ Le Baron 

Avenue in unincorporated Clark 

County 

No 32.49 acres Segment 6, Option 

C 

15 South of West Twain Avenue at West 

Flamingo Road; site of proposed 

Central Station A 

Yes 10.32 acres 6A/6B, Option C 

16 Between Russell Road and Hacienda; 

site of proposed Southern Station 

Yes 57.09 acres 6A, 6B 

17 South of Bonneville Avenue in City of 

Las Vegas; site of proposed 

Downtown Station 

Yes 24.08 acres 7A, 7B, Option C 

18 + 

19 

At openings of proposed tunnel #1 

northeast of Mountain Pass 

No 2.15 acres 4B 

20 + 

21 

At openings of proposed tunnel #2 

northeast of Mountain Pass 

No 2.22 acres 4B 

22 West of I-15 between Polaris Street 

and Aldebaran Avenue at site of 

proposed Central Station B 

Yes 10.0 7A/7B 

Source: DesertXpress, 2006-2008. 








Sou

rce: EarthTech, 2008.

DesertXpress

Project EIS Typical Section At Grade 2-3
Sou

rce: EarthTech, 2008.

DesertXpress

Project EIS Typical Section, Retained Embankment 2-4
Sou

rce: EarthTech, 2008.

DesertXpress

Project EIS Typical Section, Grade Separated 2-5
* *

Note:

* Shoulders would be constructed in 

accordance with Caltrans design standards. 

Within California, roadway shoulders would 

be 10 feet in width.
* *

Note:

* Shoulders would be constructed in 

accordance with Caltrans design standards. 

Within California, roadway shoulders would 

be 10 feet in width.
* *

Note:

* Shoulders would be constructed in 

accordance with Caltrans design standards. 

Within California, roadway shoulders would 

be 10 feet in width.
Existing I-15 Freeway Proposed DXE Tracks Existing I-15 Freeway

New Drainage System

NOT TO SCALE

Source: Korve Engineering, 2006

DesertXpress

Project EIS Typical Section, Median Drainage Treatment 2-9
NORTHBOUND I15

+0

+0

-1

+0

FUTURE STATE ROUTE E220

+0

GARAGE STRUCTURE SELF-PARKING

CAR RENTAL FACILITY

SOUTHTBOUND I15

+0 +0

+0

3 LANES

3 LANES

3 LANES

40' BAGGAGE PLATFORM

30' DEPARTURE PLATFORM

30' ARRIVAL PLATFORM

STATION BUILDING VALET PARKING

STODDARD WELLS ROAD

900'

300'

PAKING

(FUTURE - INSIDE ISLAND)

+0

100' (x 1000' APPROACH) HIGH SPEED RAIL R.O.W. +1

TO OMSF

TO LAS VEGAS +0

+1

+1

+0/+1

(425,000± SF / 350 SF EA. STD STALL

 = 1,200+ PARKING SPACES)

(525,000± SF x 4 LEVELS / 350 SF EA. STD STALL

 = 6,000+ PARKING SPACES)

(350,000± SF / 175 SF EA. STD STALL

 = 2,000+ PARKING SPACES)

(200,000± SF = 4.5+ ACRES)

NEW STATION ACCESS ROAD (CONNECTED OFF STODDARD WELLS ROAD)

-1

+1

+0

+0

VALET PARKING

(175,000± SF / 175 SF EA. STD STALL

 = 1,000+ PARKING SPACES)

(PARKING EXTEND BELOW RAIL R.O.W. STRUCTURE

850,000± SF / 350 SF EA. STD STALL

 = 2,425+ PARKING SPACES)

+1

SURFACE SELF-PARKING -

SURFACE SELF-PARKING

+1

+0

+0

(PARKING EXTEND BELOW RAIL R.O.W. STRUCTURE

525,000± SF / 350 SF EA. STD STALL

 = 1,500+ PARKING SPACES)

SURFACE SELF-PARKING

(350,000± SF / 350 SF EA. STD STALL

 = 1,000+ PARKING SPACES)

SURFACE SELF-PARKING -

0 100' 200' 400' 800'

NOT TO SCALE

DesertXpress

Project EIS

Note: Please refer to Appendix A, which includes plan 

and profile drawings at 1”:1000’, seven fold-out maps 

depicting the DesertXpress project in full, and detailed 

site plans for all ancillary facilities.

Victorville Station, Site 1, Plan View 2-10






NOT TO SCALE

DesertXpress

Project EIS Southern Station Option, Section View 2-17
+2

EASTBOUND I15 +0

WESTBOUND I15 +0

-1

+0

40' BAGGAGE PLATFORM

30' DEPARTURE PLATFORM

30' ARRIVAL PLATFORM

STATION BUILDING

900'

300'

STATION BUILDING

250'

0/+1/+2

100' (x 1000' APPROACH) HIGH SPEED RAIL R.O.W.

+2

+2 +2

300'

+0

PARKING - 2.75+ ACRES

 120,000± / 350 SF EA. STD

SURFACE

SELF PARKING

180,000± = 4.1+ ACRES)

= 340+ PARKING SPACES

220,000± / 350 SF

= 625+ PARKING

SPACES

SURFACE SELF 

CAR RENTAL FACILTIY

2 LANES OUT

5+ ACRES

VALET PARKING 3+ ACRES (150,000± SF / 175 SF

 = 850+ PARKING EA. STD STALL

SPACES) FUTURE PARKING

0 100' 200' 400' 800'

NOT TO SCALE

DesertXpress

Project EIS Central Station Option A, Plan View 2-18

Note: Please refer to Appendix A, which includes plan 

and profile drawings at 1”:1000’, seven fold-out maps 

depicting the DesertXpress project in full, and detailed 

site plans for all ancillary facilities.
DesertXpress

Project EIS Central Station Option A, Section View 2-19

Sou

rce: Marnell Architecture, 2008.

DesertXpress

Project EIS Central Station Option B, Section View 2-21
FUTURE PEDESTRIAN

40' BAGGAGE PLATFORM

30' DEPARTURE PLATFORM

30' ARRIVAL PLATFORM

STATION BUILDING

STATION BUILDING

BRIDGE

SURFACE SELF PARKING

(5 ACRES)

CAR RENTAL FACILITY

(4 ACRES)

EXIT

+2

+0

+0

+0

+0

+1/+2 +1/+2

300'

250'

+2

900'

300'

ENTRANCE

2 LANES

100' (x 1000' APPROACH)

HIGH

RAIL

SPEED

R.O.W.

0 100' 200' 400' 800'

NOT TO SCALE

DesertXpress

Project EIS Downtown Station Option, Plan View 2-22

Note: Please refer to Appendix A, which includes plan 

and profile drawings at 1”:1000’, seven fold-out maps 

depicting the DesertXpress project in full, and detailed 

site plans for all ancillary facilities.
NOT TO SCALE

DesertXpress

Project EIS Downtown Station Option, Section View 2-23